Addition of anaerobic coverage for treatment of biliary tract infections: a propensity score-matched cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: spp., are associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with biliary tract infections (BTIs). Methods: This was a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort of adults aged ≥18 years with BTIs, admitted to hospital between 1 April 2015 and 30 March 2021. Eligible patients treated with antibiotics that provided coverage of anaerobes were compared with those treated with comparable regimens without anaerobic coverage. The primary outcome was a composite of mortality within 30 days or relapse within 90 days of source control or completion of antibiotics. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), duration of antibiotic therapy and adverse drug reactions. ORs were calculated using a weighted generalized linear regression model with propensity-score matching. Results: Among 398 patients included, 209 were treated without anaerobic coverage and 189 with anaerobic coverage. After propensity-score matching, there was no significant difference in primary outcome between propensity-matched patients who received additional anaerobic coverage and those who did not [adjusted OR (aOR) 1.23; 95% CI 0.69-2.22)]. Those with anti-anaerobic coverage had longer LOS (aOR 4.85; 95% CI 1.68-13.98) and longer duration of antibiotic treatment (aOR 4.14; 95% CI 2.61-6.57) than those who did not receive additional anaerobic therapy, but not more adverse drug reactions (aOR 1.01; 95% CI 0.97-1.05). Conclusions: Omitting anti-anaerobic antibiotics may be a safe antimicrobial stewardship intervention. However, a randomized controlled trial may be warranted to definitively conclude whether additional anaerobic coverage in BTI treatment is necessary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".